It Depends What Is, Is -- Part 2
Posted by Bobby Eberle
February 17, 2009 at 7:29 am
Poor Roland Burris... you know who he is, right? In contrast to the scheming, manipulative, power hungry, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Burris has been portrayed as the grandfatherly, gentlemanly beneficiary of a Senate appointment. Blagojevich was ousted from office because of his "pay to play" tactics. Corruption was running amok. Barack Obama's Senate seat was up for sale, and Blagojevich was looking for the highest bidder.
But... when the appointment was actually made, and Roland Burris emerged as the pick, the talk of corruption and payoffs melted away. The media portrayed Blagojevich as bad, Burris as good. Now the dam is beginning to crack, and there's a Noah's Ark-type flood heading Burris' way.
You see... it's beginning to appear that there are some "inconsistencies" in Burris' previous statements. It doesn't look like you can call it perjury, but Burris sure did take a page from former President Clinton's statement that it "depends what the definition of is, is."
As noted in the AP story Burris: Feds' questions didn't prompt admissions, Burris was questioned in January before the Illinois House impeachment committee regarding his contacts with Blagojevich. The committee "specifically asked whether he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama."
Burris denied having any contact with Blagojevich or his aides. However, in a newly submitted affidavit, Burris admits that he did have contact with Blagojevich's brother, and -- low and behold -- during those conversations -- "Blagojevich's brother asked him for campaign fundraising help before Blagojevich appointed Burris to the Senate."
Burris contends that he was never given the opportunity to answer a "direct" question about Blagojevich's brother, and thus "submitted the Feb. 4 affidavit to clarify."
As the AP reports:
[T]ranscripts of Burris' impeachment committee testimony show he had opportunities to provide a full response to Illinois legislators. In one instance, when asked directly about speaking to Robert Blagojevich and other associates of the former governor, Burris consulted with his attorney before responding.
According to a Fox News report, Burris appears to be using the "they never asked" defense. He's denying that he committed perjury because the Illinois House committee didn't ask the particular question about Blagojevich's brother -- only Blagojevich himself and his aides.
But does the omission amount to perjury?
A review of the testimony Burris gave to the House panel last month shows that if Burris didn't lie about the chain of events that led to his appointment, he certainly had numerous opportunities to clear the air.
The most commonly cited opportunity came toward the beginning of his lengthy testimony.
In that exchange, Republican state Rep. Jim Durkin asked Burris if he had "any conversations" with Blagojevich prior to the governor's arrest about his "desire to be appointed" to the Senate seat.
"No," Burris said.
Here is a portion of Burris' recent press conference:
So... he answered everything in the "time allotted" and made no "inconsistent" statements. In other words, had the committee given Burris more time, he would have surely perjured himself.
The opening statement is the highlight of Burris' performance at the press conference. Once actual questions are asked, it all goes downhill.
Burris is currently saying that he will not step down from his seat. As Fox News reports, "The Democratic senator remained adamant that the Feb. 4 affidavit was merely a promised supplement, not a contradiction, to his testimony before the impeachment committee and was not requested as part of the federal corruption investigation of Blagojevich's administration."
"There was no change of any of our testimony," Burris, 71, said. "We followed up as we promised the impeachment committee. ... The information that's being reported in terms of that this was done because of a fed statement is absolutely, positively not true."
So... the beat goes on in Illinois politics. Burris might not know what the definition of is, is... but it looks like he soon might find out.
??